Subscribe to this blog

Get Email Updates!

Search This Blog

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." -Cicero

Florida: Judge Orders Eligibility Attorney To Stay Away; No Petitions Will Be Entertained

I am not making this up, these are actually the words of the non-fictional State of Florida appointed Judge regarding the eligibility of BHO:“As this matter has come before the court at this time of the year it
seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the
fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the
classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States
Government declares this man to be president, this court will not
dispute it. Case dismissed.’”With judges like this on the bench, we are doomed.- W.E.

Florida Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll, who previously cited the fictitious judge in “Miracle on 34th Street” in a ruling, now says he’s done with arguments over Barack Obama’s eligibility.Carroll released an order today refusing to hear a request for a
hearing that is allowed under state law when there are doubts about a
candidate’s eligibility. And let that be the last, the judge said.“No petitions for clarification or further rehearing will be
entertained by the court,” he said in his ruling that refused to respond
to a request for the state-allowed hearing in a case brought by Michael
Voeltz.“The court … finds no factual or legal cause to recede from its prior
ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” he wrote.The attorney handling the case for Voeltz, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch,
told WND if the judge doesn’t want to address the dispute, then he’ll
take it to the appellate level, and that filing could occur as early as
this weekend.He noted that the judge had promised the plaintiffs time to respond
to an Obama motion to dismiss the case but then dismissed it without
allowing the time frame to expire.The judge already had decided he would not hold an evidentiary
hearing, which is allowed under state law in such a case. A hearing is
supposed to be held when candidates’ qualifications are challenged,
according a state law that allows Florida residents to challenge the
eligibility of election candidates, Klayman said.Carroll earlier had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to
Obama’s motion to dismiss the case but then changed his mind and
abruptly ordered the case dismissed several days before the deadline.He explained that the fact the government says Obama is qualified to be president is more than enough for him.“This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He
flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State
of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a
regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the
interests of the United States throughout the world,” Carroll wrote.“As this matter has come before the court at this time of the year it
seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the
fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the
classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States
Government declares this man to be president, this court will not
dispute it. Case dismissed.’”It was the second time in eligibility cases that a judge appears to
have abandoned legal fundamentals and simply ruled for Obama on no legal
basis.Several years ago it was Judge James Robertson in Washington who
dismissed a case because, he wrote, “The issue of the president’s
citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise
massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year
campaign for the presidency.”Significantly, it was two years later that Obama released a
computer-generated image of a Hawaii birth document, still trying to
provide information that would answer the questions.Klayman told WND that Carroll had refused to scheduled the hearing or
even respond to inquiries to the court and suggested he was “waiting
for Groundhog Day to come out.”“The process now is we will take this to the appellate level,” he said.Attorneys for Obama endorsed Carroll’s ruling that cited the “Santa” decision from the fictional movie “Miracle on 34th Street.”The dispute pending in court is over a challenge to Obama’s
eligibility to be president and the plaintiff, Voeltz, is a Democrat
from Florida who demanding the evidentiary hearing allowed under state
law.Obama’s attorney, Florida Bar member Mark Herron, submitted a
“response” to the hearing petition that the judge’s original decision to
dismiss the case had been correct.The decision, from Kevin Carroll of the Florida circuit court for Leon County,
dismissed the Voeltz case even though he had raised the issue of
Obama’s qualifications under a state law that allows voters to challenge
candidates’ eligibility.Klayman said the dispute “is an election issue and it needed to be
fully appealed and the issues needed to be decided in time for both the
general election and/or post election, since Florida electors were to
vote on Dec. 17, 2012, and the Electoral College will be casting their
votes on Jan. 6, 2013.”He said the lower court refused his requests to move the case
quickly, such as advancing directly to the state Supreme Court. So, like
the Bush v. Gore contest in 2000, it probably will end up being
litigated after the election process is completed.Klayman had argued the issue of holding a hearing wasn’t optional for the judge.“This court had a statutory duty under the Florida Election laws, the
Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and 3 U.S.C. Section 5, to adjudicate
defendant Obama’s eligibility and his alleged fraudulent acts
expeditiously, timely, and before the electors met on Dec. 17, 2012, and
before the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2013,” Klayman explained.
“Thus, this court also violated these law is dismissing the complaint
summarily.”Klayman suggested to the court its order “at a minimum creates an
appearance that it simply jettisoned this case not only on the
extrajudicial and non-legal premise that President Obama was president
during the prior four year term, and has already performed many
‘presidential’ acts but also because this court did not want to be
‘inconvenienced’ by holding an evidentiary hearing.”He said the remarks about fictional judge Henry X. Harper in “Miracle
on 34th St.” were “inappropriate” and showed “a mindset simply to rid
the court of this case.”“This court seems to want to sidestep having to reach these serious and important matters before it,” Klayman said.Klayman has submitted evidence by way of a sworn statement from
Investigator Mike Zullo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in
Arizona that there probably were two crimes committed in the creation
and display of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, which was released
by the White House and posted online.Zullo’s testimony is that forgery was committed to create the
document, and fraud was committed in “presenting to the residents of
Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White
House represents as ‘proof positive’ of President Obama’s” birth
documentation.Arpaio’s affidavit also was presented to the judge.The sheriff said: “My investigators and I believe that President
Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated document,
was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a
paper format, as claimed by the White House. … There is probable cause
that the document is a forgery.”Klayman has argued that Obama “has never established his eligibility
for the presidency of the United States … the only evidence of defendant
Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of a
belatedly filed electronic version of a claimed long-form birth
certificate posted on the Internet.”He told the judge that the evidence suggests, however, the document is fraudulent.The case claims that should the judge not address the facts, the plaintiff “can never be made whole again.”“If defendant Obama is found to be ineligible, which is likely to
happen since there is no evidence … Obama was born in the United States
to U.S. citizen parents, the plaintiff’s vote in the 2012 presidential
election will be nullified.”He said state law calls for an expedited hearing in such cases.In the case, Klayman argued: “On Nov. 6, 2012, the state of Florida
held its 2012 general election. On Nov. 10, 2012, defendant Barack
Hussein Obama was declared the official winner of the Florida general
election. Yet defendant Obama has never established his eligibility for
the presidency of the United States.“Indeed, neither defendant Obama, nor the Democratic Party of
Florida, has even stated that defendant Obama is a ‘natural born
citizen,’” the filing said. “The only evidence of defendant Obama’s
alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of an
electronic version posted on the Internet. However, there has been
evidence to show that this ‘birth certificate’ has either been altered
or is entirely fraudulent.”Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issueThe original case sought to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot.
Klayman and Voeltz claimed that Obama is not a natural born citizen as
required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, because he
was born a British subject.“Plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz has standing as a Florida voter, and
taxpayer, to challenge the ‘nomination or election of any person to
office’ based on the winning candidates’ eligibility for the office
sought. … The state of Florida has chosen, by popular election, the
electors for Defendant Barack Hussein Obama to be president … Plaintiff
has fulfilled all aspects of the Florida election statutes for this
challenge of eligibility, as to timing, venue, and indispensable
parties.”Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not
born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and,
therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election
ballot.The filing also explained the judiciary “has the power to determine
eligibility. The contest of election statute specifically created a
cause of action to enable plaintiff, a registered elector and taxpayer,
to bring this lawsuit in order for this court to determine the
eligibility of defendant Obama.”